Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1887-11-16
SPARKS RESIGNS.
He Addresses a Long Let
ter to the President
IN DEFENSE OF HIS CASE.
History of the Trouble With La
mar-"Indemnity Lands" the
Point in Dispute.

Point in Dispute.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD
WASHINGTON, November 15.-Land
Commissioner Sparks this afternoon
personally delivered to the President
the following letter, defending his
course in the Chicago, st. Paul, Min
neapolis and Omaha railroad land
grant case, and formally resigned his
office
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
Washington, Nov. 10, 1875
To the PRESIDENT
The Honorable Secretary of the In
terror advises me by letter dated the
18th instant, in effect that he should
on that date present to you the alter
native of selecting a new Secretary of
the Interior or new Commissioner of
the General Land Office. Under the
authority vested in the Commissioner
by the laws, had previous to Septem-
Der, 1887, made adjustments of certain
railroad land grants, two of which
were known as the Omaha cases, and
had been specially directed to report
on October 7, 1887. The decisions OF
the Secretary rendered in the Omaha
cases were non-concurring in my ad-
justments and overriding the authority
on which they were based. He di-
rected me at the same time to cause
the grants to be adjusted in conform
ity with said decision. / infer from
his published letter that the decisions
were not approved by the official law
advisor for the Department OF the In
terror.
THE POINT AT ISSUE
Related to the claim of railroad
companies to indemnity for lands
that under the Ra lroad Granting Acts
were reserved from the operation OF
these acts by express terms OF the
Statutes. Previous to 1875, lands that
had been reserved by the Govern
ment for Indian and other purposes,
had been patented and certified to the
companies. both as granted lands and
indemnity promscuously with other
lands. This seems to have been done
in pursuance OF the practice OF giving
railroad companies
WHATEVER THEY ASKED FOR,
Apparently without much considera-
ton OF restrictions and limitations of
grants. In that year little to
large quantity of such lands in the
State of Kansas, which had been
enormously conveyed to the Leaven-
worth, Lawrence and Galveston
Railroad was declared invalid by the
United States Supreme Court. Since
that date lands that were. reserved at
the date of grant, or the definite loca-
tons of roads, have been regarded in
the decision and practice of this
Office and the Department, excluded,
not only from all grants, but from in
demnity, as such reserved lands are
by terms of the law excluded from
operation OF said act"
The Secretary hell in the Omaha
cases that the company was entitled
to indemnity for such lands.
EFFECT OF LAMAR's RULING.
This decision, if adhered to, will
have the effect to take from the peo-
pie many million acres OF land within
the railroad indemnity limits, which,
by your advice and with your ap-
proval, as expressed in the Guilford-
Miller case, have been proclaimed to
the country as restored to the public
domain. The question of the correct
ness of the decisions becomes, there
fore, a matter of momentous concern.
If they correctly declare the law,
these lands belong to the railroad
company, but, according to my read
ing OF the law, the lands belong to the
people. The Omaha decisions pur-
port to be founded upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of
the Winona and st. Peter Railroad
Company vs.. Barney, the assertion
being made that the plain language OF
tile Court in that case seems to be
conclusive of the questions pre-
sented," and, also, upon certain
rules of statutory Interpretation relied
upon as being
AN ITEM OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Said decisions we're further inferre
in reference to reported decision OF
the United States Circuit Court for
Wisconsin, which was said in the
Omaha case to be a judicial construc.
ton, and seems to leave no further
room for discussion. 1t appeared to
me that the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Barney cases wa, appar-
emily silent upon the question decided
in the Omaha cases, and that not even
the arbiter sustained this decision. 1t
also appeared to me that the question
at issue was not decided by the Cir
cult Court for Wisconsin, and it seemed
that the rule OF statutory interpreta-
ton adopted in the Omaha cases was
the opposite of the rule of construc-
ton adopted by the courts, and laid
down by law writer's. was, therefore,
profoundly convinced that the Secre-
tary had committed
ERRORS OF LAW,
Which, if brought fully to his personal
attention, might be corrected. 1t is
the practice OF the department to per-.
NIT representatives of railroad COM
panies and other private interests to
apply for review and reconsiderations
OF decisions when questions are de-
cided against such interests. l be-
lieved that, as an officer of the govern
ment having immediate guardianship
OF the public lands, and immediate
charge of the issuance OF patents under
all grants Of land, l had at least an
equal right with the representatives
of private interests to ask the Secre.-
tary to re-examine the departmental
decision; and 1 believed it especially
proper tf0a
TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS
To the Secretary in these cases. l
wonld have done so in the original in
stances if had anticipated the change
of the ruling and decision upon the
point in question. Accordingly l p r
sonally expressed to the Secretary my
desire to have review of the decis-
ions in these cases. He suggested to
me to let the matter rest for the pres
ent, to which suggestion l cheerfully